On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> >> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a >>>> better way to do this in the future. >>> >>> Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have >>> both pg_retainxlog and the new way? >> >> Well, I think in the long term we are likely to want the master to >> have some kind of ability to track the positions of its slaves, even >> when they are disconnected. And, optionally, to retain the WAL that >> they need, again even when they are disconnected. If such an ability >> materializes, this will be moot (even as I think that pg_standby is >> now largely moot, at least for new installations, now that we have >> standby_mode=on). > > I agree. But just as we had pg_standby for quite a while before we got > standby_mode=on, I believe we should have pg_retainxlog (or something > like it) until we have something more integrated.
Yep, not disagreeing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
